There is a slight difference between Widnes' & Wakefield's position compared to Bradford, with Bradford it seems not attempting to pay off the debts they owe. I think that may be why Bradford's situation should be remembered

Were you under the impression that Wakefield and Widnes paid off their debts?

Yes. What exact level of payment back I don't know, do you believe they didn't pay any debts at all?

Andrew Glover did pay off some of the debts the old company owed, which lead to a four point deduction rather than the standard six. I’m not party to how much he paid off, others may be.

No, not at all, Neither was i under the impression that eithe Mr Glover, or Mr O'connor stepped in to pay off debts rather than buy a club.

The only material differences between Wakefields administration and Bradfords administration are the time it took, and the time of year it happened.

He did pay off some, others went unpaid. And he did it to get a lower deduction and benefit his club, not out of some altruistic sense of moral judgement which lead him to over pay for a club in administration.

From memory the amount paid for Wakefield by Mr Glover was very very low, in the tens rather than hundreds of thousands, he did buy it for the lowest price he could, not for the value of outstanding debt.

That isnt a criticism of him

You might want to check who appoints the 'independent' chairman and members of the panel. You might also want to check how cases are actually referred to the panel in the first place.

The disciplinary is independent in name only.


Exactly what point? That the governing body of a sport should somehow not be involved in an important aspect of running that sport? What possible 'conflict of interest' could exist? And the three non-executive members are just as independent as the disciplinary panel that you seem so enamoured of.

All your posts share the same basic assumption - that the RFL are not to be trusted under any circumstances. You're entitled to hold such an opinion but the problem is it then affects the logic of your arguments.

Are you saying that the buy-out of Wakefield was not creditor approved?

Just looked it up - it seems it wasn't creditor approved, and Mr Glover repaid some of the debt from a sense of honour.

Right, I withdraw my accusations of bias.

It wasnt a CVA, it went through the same process as Bradford, with a new company being formed, buying the assets of the old one, and the old one being liquidated.

I don't know whether to be more or less appalled. I suppose being [iconsistently[/i weak is better?
Hmmm, yep, it is.

Bradford have to stay then I guess - which is convenient, at least.

Licensing is still poop though - can't believe it took me this long to notice.

Why the suggestions of the mini-round then? straw that bent the camel's back? The obvious Rangers comparison?

Blanket apology for drawing false distinctions. Grudging thanks to Smokey for the correction. Sickening.

Im not sure it is weakness, its just the RFL avoiding responsibility for something which, to be honest, isnt their responsibility. The tax man isnt helping to govern RL, im not sure the RFL need to be helping recover tax.
It isnt down to licensing that either Wakefield or Bradford went pop. Both were down to bad management. Whatever system we put in place, we cant legislate against idiocy. Franchising isnt about stopping idiots being idiots. Yes it should make it easier for us to recognise them earlier, and deal with them earlier, and it that respect it hasnt been a benefit, but thats not the only reason we have it. We have it so clubs can build, so that clubs arent demolished after 1 bad season. So that clubs like Wakefield can build, can grow, can look to the top rather than the bottom.


There wasnt a need. It was a matter of months between Wakefield coming out of admin and the full franchising round. Like a modern day jesus, im just trying to educate the masses, one at a time